Energy Justice POINTs: Policies to create a more sustainable & fairer future for all - Briefing paper prepared by Rachel Bray and Rebecca Ford May ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Energy Justice POINTs: Policies to create a more sustainable & fairer future for all Briefing paper prepared by Rachel Bray and Rebecca Ford May 2021
Summary
The transition to clean energy is one of the UK’s five priority areas for COP26. Alongside the
potential benefits from creating green energy jobs, transition to a net-zero energy system offers
the potential for delivering broader social, political, and economic benefits (Hamilton and Akbar,
2010; Hepburn et al., 2020; Roy et al., 2018; Sovacool et al., 2020).
History shows us that socio-economic disruptions associated with transitions tend to amplify
inequalities (Sovacool and Brisbois, 2019). It is likely that without intervention, these benefits,
and the costs to deliver them, will not be evenly distributed across society, with negative impacts
disproportionately affecting those in lower socio-economic and minority groups.
Against this backdrop there has been increasing recognition for the need for Energy Justice – to
deliver a socially inclusive and equitable net-zero transition (Abram et al., 2020).
This growing awareness of the importance of energy justice has created the need for a
framework or lens through which policy impact can be explored at the wider system level to
help mitigate against unintended consequences.
Energy Justice POINTs (Policy Overview and Impacts for Net-zero Transitions) – see Figure 1 –
provides a useful and usable framework to help decision makers explore the wide-reaching
energy justice implications of their net-zero visions, strategies, and policies.
It is based on four tenets of justice:
Ad • Distributional – where injustices lie
d
Distributional Over time • Recognition – who is affected
iti
on
• Procedural – how injustices can be overcome
al
dim
• Restorative – what we can do to ameliorate past
ice
ensio
injustices and mitigate against future injustices
energy just
Recognition At different
scales
ns of a just en
POINTs It also includes an additional four dimensions to
framework take a whole-systems approach to a just transition
Along energy
Procedural
ets of
supply which has been developed through a review of
chains the literature (see Appendix 1 for description of
Ten
erg
Across methods).
y
power
t
Restorative
ran
structures &
In this paper we outline the development of the Energy
sit
hierarchies
io
n
Justice POINTs framework, discuss how it can be used, and
provide a worked example of how the framework could be
applied to a specific project.
Figure 1: The Energy Justice POINTs framework
2Contents Acknowledgements
This report forms part of ALIGN: ALigning
Introduction 4
Impacts for Getting to Net zero. The authors
Engaging workers in a shifting industry 5 gratefully acknowledge financial support for
ALIGN from the UK’s Economic and Social
Beyond workers: addressing wider societal
Research Council (ESRC) through the Place-
issues 6
Based Climate Action Network (P-CAN), grant
Embedding energy justice in net-zero number ES/S008381/1.
transitions 8
We also wish to thank the ALIGN Advisory
The four tenets of energy justice 9
Board, who provided valuable feedback on
Justice beyond the four tenets 11 previous versions of this work, which helped
us to shape the final report.
Using the Energy Justice POINTs
framework 18
Appendix 1: Methods 25 Authors
References 28
• Rachel Bray | University of Strathclyde
• Rebecca Ford | University of Strathclyde
This report should be referenced as:
Bray, R. & Ford, R. 2021. Energy Justice
POINTs: Policies to create a more
sustainable & fairer future for all. Glasgow:
University of Strathclyde.
ISBN: 978-1-909522-85-5
3Introduction
In the run up to COP26 countries around the world are revisiting their net-zero commitments
and nationally determined contributions (NDCs) toward limiting the impacts of climate change.
Recent weeks have seen revised commitments from Japan, South Korea and China, and the
welcome return of the US to the Paris Agreement. Alongside this activity at the national level
are commitments to deliver net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 from businesses, cities, regions
and wider investors via the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Race to Zero campaign, which now includes 454 cities, 23 regions, 1,397 businesses, 74 of the
biggest investors, and 569 universities around the world.1
The energy sector is a key area for action, and the transition to clean energy is one of the UK’s five
priority areas for COP26. This transition has the potential to impact a wide range of stakeholders
across government, industry, business, communities, workers and members of the public, and
across geographic scales and boundaries, industry sectors, and supply chains. Alongside the
potential benefits from creating green energy jobs, transition to a net-zero energy system offers
the potential for delivering broader social, political, and economic benefits (Hamilton and Akbar,
2010; Hepburn et al., 2020; Roy et al., 2018; Sovacool et al., 2020).
However, we are also faced with an era of unprecedented social and economic inequality
(Lacey-Barnacle, 2020), and history shows us that socio-economic disruptions associated with
transitions tend to amplify inequalities (Sovacool and Brisbois, 2019). It is likely that without
intervention, these benefits, and the costs to deliver them, will not be evenly distributed across
society, with negative impacts disproportionately affecting those in lower socio-economic and
minority groups.
Against this backdrop there has been increasing recognition for the need to deliver a socially
inclusive and equitable net-zero transition (Abram et al., 2020). There is a moral imperative
to embed justice in the energy transition and underpin international agreements (see Box 1).
Equally important, the transition to a net-zero future simply won’t happen at the pace and scale
commensurate with the commitments being made by national, sub-state, and non-state actors
unless the values, needs, perspectives, and rights of the energy workforce and wider society are
accounted for.
1 Up-to-date statistics available from UNFCCC.
4Box 1: The international context of a just transition
Justice, and a Just Transition, are enshrined in international agreements. The 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015), adopted by all United Nations Member States
in 2015, sets out 17 goals aimed at ending poverty, protecting the planet, and ensuring
prosperity for all people in line with a just and equitable energy transition. In the same
year the International Labor Organization (ILO, 2015) also set out ‘Guidelines for a Just
Transition’ with clear indicators for international governments surrounding the ‘greening of
economies’ in line with decent work, poverty eradication and environmental sustainability.
Three years later, during the COP24 meeting in 2018, the ‘Just Transition’ received particular
emphasis, with the adoption of the “Solidarity and Just Transitions Silesia Declaration”. A
Just Transition takes into account the rights of the workforce, encourages the creation
of decent work and quality jobs in sustainable economic sectors in accordance with
nationally defined development priorities. It also sets out that the burden of climate action
should not be borne unequally by one set of workers or communities or any one country,
encapsulating a very geographical perspective on who is affected and where (Jenkins,
2019; Jenkins et al., 2020a).
Engaging workers in a shifting industry
Changes in energy production and use toward net-zero could lead to the loss of 6 million jobs
globally by 2030, while creating 24 million new jobs, compared to a ‘business as usual’ pathway
(Gambhir et al., 2018). However, it’s not just the number of jobs that is important to consider,
but other factors. These include job availability, duration, and hours, as well as the quality of
these jobs, described, for example, by pay, career progression opportunities, whether workers
are employed or self-employed, and the presence of unions to represent workers in growing
industries.
Workers in high carbon sectors would be willing to move to jobs outside the sector, or in the
renewables sector, according to research (Robins, 2020). However, perceived injustices, anxiety
over losing out, and lack of clarity around how their needs can be met can lead to pushback or
backlash against decarbonisation. This was evident in some of the areas of the US that voted for
Donald Trump (Healy and Barry, 2017) and also in the 2019 Australian elections that saw voters in
the coal-producing state of Queensland rally against proposals to cut coal production over fear
for their jobs and income (Johnson, 2020). Workers backlash was also evident in the ‘Mouvement
des Gilets jaunes’ turbulence on the streets of France due to President Macron’s rise in fuel duty
(Abdelal, 2020) and the historic 1980s Miners Strikes in the UK (Foden et al., 2014). Workers must
therefore be engaged in the transition in order to build socio-political support for the changes
required as the world shifts toward a net-zero economy.
It is also important to recognise that not all regions will see net job creation. The Middle East and
Africa will experience job losses if their economic structure stays in line with historical trends
(Gambhir et al., 2018). In these regions, and others with prevailing fossil-fuel based industries, the
shift away from coal could lead to increasing levels of poverty and unemployment, along with
the loss of embedded local identity (Harrahill and Douglas, 2019).
5Additionally, job losses in areas dependent on fossil-based industries of coal, oil and gas can lead
to further job losses in other sectors such as retail and construction due to the general decline
in local and regional economic vitality (Graff et al., 2018). Without the right policies and public
investments, these regions – including the east coast of Scotland and the north east of England
in the UK – could suffer disproportionately (Nicolle et al., 2020).
While powering past coal is clearly a key dimension of delivering net-zero, closure of mines
can have significant widespread and long-lasting negative impacts on these regions. A study
by Sheffield Hallam University in 2014 (Foden et al., 2014) on former coal mining areas across
England, Scotland and Wales showed continued substantial unemployment and deprivation. Key
statistics highlighted that:
• Across the coalfields as a whole, there are just 50 jobs for every 100 residents of working
age. In South Wales there are just 41 for every 100.
• Coalfield residents in work are more likely to be employed in lower-grade or manual
occupations, and the coalfield workforce is more likely to lack higher-grade qualifications.
• Ill health is widespread: In most of the coalfields, the proportion of residents reporting ill
health or limitations on everyday activities is almost double the level in South East England.
• Deprivation is widespread: 43% of all neighbourhoods in the coalfields fall into the worst
30% in Britain, according to Indices of Deprivation.
To address this and help mitigate impacts on people and communities, ‘just transition’
movements are springing up internationally. These include:
• The Just Transition Centre established by the International Trade Union Confederation
(ITUC) in 2016
• The Scottish Just Transition Commission established in 2019
• The Institute for Just Transition introduced by the Spanish Government in 2020
These initiatives bring together workers and their unions, communities, businesses and
governments. They focus on optimising opportunities for industrial and economic activity
to provide employment and development for workers and regions affected by low-carbon
transition and exploring the need for early planning and long-term investment to capture the
economic benefits of transition.
However, it is not simply a matter of creating new jobs, as job creation in itself does not
necessarily ensure just outcomes (Abram et al., 2020). Governments need to take account of
where these jobs will be located, who will be filling them, and whether there is adequate skills
provision training for workers to undertake them. This includes equal access to education and
targeted vocational training for lower skilled workers to ensure that the creation of ‘green’ jobs
benefits the workers and regions most in need (Unsworth et al., 2020).
Beyond workers: addressing wider societal issues
The magnitude of reducing energy sector carbon emissions requires action across the whole of
society (Bolwig et al., 2020). This means that public acceptance and support is a critical element
in delivering net-zero (Heffron and McCauley, 2017).
6Governments and companies need public commitment as they make difficult decisions
surrounding how much to spend, how much cost to pass on to consumers and what kinds of
policies and regulations to implement (Bayulgen and Benegal, 2019). Furthermore, a lack of
social acceptance can increase costs, cause delays and unwanted distributional impacts (Bolwig
et al., 2020).
The social acceptance of transition can be characterised in three areas: socio-political
acceptance, community acceptance, and market acceptance (Bolwig et al., 2020):-
Socio-political acceptance means that new energy technologies are considered to be
acceptable and useful by society and they are favourably represented by media, politics and
national institutions (Bolwig et al., 2020). A lack of socio-political acceptance can lead to social
backlash as shown in the ‘Gilets Jaunes’ movement in France (Tagliapietra et al., 2019) and the
demonstrations in Santiago, Chile sparked by an increase in metro fares caused by the decision
to power the rail network with renewable energy (Early, 2019).
Community acceptance covers the opinions of people living in the environment of specific
energy projects, who therefore bear most of the direct external impacts. Community perceptions
may also be shaped by past experiences and cultural heritage (Cuppen et al., 2020). Processes
which engage local citizens and build trust in these energy projects can contribute towards
gaining community acceptance; a lack of such processes can contribute to local conflicts
surrounding projects (Bolwig et al., 2020).
Market acceptance relates to consumer costs and a perceived fair distribution of financial
benefits between producers and customers. A recent Welsh study (Becker et al., 2019) uncovered
‘pervasive distrust’ in the energy sector caused by a perceived lack of transparency in reporting
company profits and perceived collusion between energy companies, government and the
regulator leading to unfair profiteering by energy companies. This was echoed in a study in
Cornwall (Bray and Woodman, 2020) which also uncovered public distrust in energy company
profiteering.
It is worth noting that social acceptance or lack thereof often hinges on perception rather than
fact, and may in fact constitute misperception. Individuals or companies may attempt to do the
right things but if the public perception of the industry or technology is negative, or hinges on
deeply rooted concerns related to trust and integrity, it becomes a challenge to make progress
in the desired direction. In addition, the current transition to net-zero is happening against the
backdrop of uneven distributional impacts of past transitions that have already undermined
public trust. This is particularly true in the UK where social inequality and regional disparities
have worsened since the Austerity agenda, introduced in 2010, drastically cut public expenditure
for services such as education, health and welfare provision (Lacey-Barnacle, 2020).
However, while deprived communities may not be primarily concerned with lowering their
carbon emissions, opportunities to reframe low carbon transitions as supporting economic
development and local regeneration can appeal to deprived areas (Lacey-Barnacle, 2020).
This is exemplified in Indianapolis through the ‘Thrive Indianapolis’ plan, which outlines the city’s
aims to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050 whilst also increasing community resilience and
reducing social inequalities. To do this, they use a co-benefits approach that treats reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions as just one of many beneficial outcomes of the actions they are
implementing to achieve their overall goal to build a thriving, sustainable and resilient city.
7Embedding energy justice in net-zero transitions
It is clear that the energy transition to net-zero needs to be socially inclusive and equitable. While
a number of policy tools can help support this approach (Abram et al., 2020) there is the need
for a wider framework or lens through which policy impact can be explored at the wider system
level to help mitigate against unintended consequences.
Energy Justice POINTs (Policy Overview and Impacts for Net-zero Transitions) – see Figure 1 –
provides a framework to help decision makers explore the wide-reaching
energy justice implications of their net-zero visions, strategies,
and policies. It takes a whole-systems approach and has been
Ad developed through a review of the literature (see Appendix
d
Distributional Over time 1 for description of methods).
iti
on
al
The goal of this work is to create a useful and usable
dim
ice
framework for policy makers and practitioners to
ensio
energy just
Recognition At different
scales examine the energy justice implications of policies
ns of a just en
POINTs or strategies to deliver net-zero. It takes inspiration
framework from The Energy Justice Workbook developed by
Along energy
Procedural
ets of
supply Shalanda Baker, Subin DeVar and Shiva Prakash at
chains the Initiative for Energy Justice, and extends the
Ten
erg
Across ideas developed by the workbook to build on the
y
power wider substantial body of energy justice literature.
t
Restorative
ran
structures &
sit
hierarchies
io
n
Figure 1: The Energy Justice POINTs framework
The following sections outline the development of the Energy Justice POINTs framework, discuss
how it can be used, and provide a worked example of how the framework could be applied to a
specific project.
8The four tenets of energy justice
Energy justice is a term that’s been widely used in social science research literature as well as
public policy literature in the context of global decarbonisation, climate change mitigation
and the transition to a green economy (Healy and Barry, 2017). Many scholars refer to the ‘three
tenets of energy justice’ to describe the three underlying principles of distributional,2 recognition
and procedural justice:
Distributional justice
There are two interlinked aspects to distributional justice. The first is location, relating to the fact
that energy infrastructure can be unevenly distributed spatially. This can be due to operational
reasons (for example because wind turbines needing to be sited in locations where they will
have the best output) but it can also relate to socioeconomic factors. For instance polluting
forms of energy production can often be situated within areas of social deprivation (McCauley
et al., 2019). Additionally, low carbon domestic technologies (such as solar PV, batteries, EVs,
heat pumps and smart appliances) are often only available to those who can afford to purchase
them. This leads to the second aspect of distributional justice: the benefits and impacts of energy
system transformation can also be unequally distributed between people and communities.
Distributional justice therefore seeks a more even sharing of these benefits and impacts across
society, regardless of income, race, gender etc. to reduce inequalities (Jenkins et al., 2016).
Questions to ask when considering distributional justice include:
• What are the primary benefits? Are there any second order benefits? For example,
policies supporting greenhouse gas emission reductions in cities could have health
benefits due to reduced air pollution; economic benefits due to reduced hospitalisation;
and wider social and environmental benefits due to reductions in carbon emissions in line
with targets for climate action.
• Who are the intended beneficiaries? This could focus on particular groups defined by
geography (e.g., those in a particular region), or socio-demographics (e.g., those living in
social housing, those who travel on public transport, those in fuel poverty etc.).
• Are there structural reasons why certain groups may be unintentionally excluded or
marginalised? For example, gender-neutral policies could have gendered impacts due to
unaccounted for differences in working or travel patterns by men and women.
• What are the costs (economic and beyond), who is bearing them, and how are
these costs distributed? Explore potential unintended consequences that may result in
additional unforeseen impacts, including financial consequences for future generations.
2 Sometimes referred to as distributive justice. Distributive justice is used more commonly in environmental
justice literature, with distributional justice used more commonly in energy justice literature (Jenkins et al.,
2020b)
9Recognition justice
This refers to the inclusion and fair representation of all stakeholders. It recognises that not
all members of society are equally valued in current socio-cultural, economic and political
arrangements, and that climate change and transitional policies could threaten to exacerbate
these existing inequalities (Abram et al., 2020). Recognition justice therefore seeks to identify
people and cultures who could be, or who have previously been, misrepresented, disadvantaged
or exploited through energy system processes (McCauley et al., 2019).
It advocates for the fair treatment of all people, regardless of social, economic, cultural, ethnic,
racial and gender differences.
Questions to ask when considering recognition justice include:
• Who does this policy serve? Is it based on the dominant cultural groups (often aligned
with white male identity) or are different groups explicitly considered?
• Are there any groups of people who are either not recognised or misrepresented in
the future scenario/society this policy aims to deliver? This could be unintentional due
to replication of historical bias in how different groups of people with different identities
are accounted for.
• Does the policy value all members of society in an explicit rather than an assumed
way? Implicit recognition can suffer from hidden forms of bias, so it’s important to
articulate how the policy ensures that all members of society are valued and treated fairly.
• How does the policy level the playing field for access to energy services or benefits for
those people who may suffer injustice in the current system?
Procedural justice
This refers to how different stakeholders are involved in decision-making processes and calls
for equitable procedures that engage all stakeholders in a non-discriminatory way. It therefore
aligns both distributional justice and recognition justice by giving people fair representation
through appropriate and fair decision-making channels.
Questions to ask when considering procedural justice include:
• What channels have been employed to provide stakeholders with input to decision
making processes? Are these channels appropriate for all stakeholders? Have
a range of channels been implemented to increase participation? For instance
online consultations may be inappropriate for older people while ‘roundtables’ may be
inaccessible to those who work during the day or have caring responsibilities.
• Which stakeholders have been actively engaged? Are there biases toward particular
groups due to the engagement channels used?
• Are there any groups who have been systematically (if unintentionally) shut out due
to the processes implemented?
• How has stakeholder input been accounted for in the decision-making processes
and resultant policies? Are some voices given priority for deliberate or unintentional
reasons? Is this bias (if deliberate) transparent? If unintentional, what action can be
taken to remove the bias?
10Restorative justice
Recently, a fourth tenet has gained traction, which is the concept of ‘restorative justice’.
Restorative justice is based on the legal theory of criminal justice which calls for a process of
remediation in response to past injustices. Restorative justice therefore aims to redress the past
harm done to people, society or nature and can assist in pinpointing where prevention needs to
occur (Heffron and McCauley, 2017).
Questions to ask when considering restorative justice include:
• Which stakeholders or parts of society experience injustice in current policy or
practice arrangements? Why is this the case? Are there underlying issues (e.g., social,
political, economic etc.) that have created this past injustice?
• How might these groups be affected by new policies in terms of process and
outcomes? Through what mechanisms is past injustice being addressed?
• Have these groups been engaged in this restorative process?
• Can this policy/ proposal alleviate previous landscape degradation or community
erosion?
• Could the new policy create future unintended consequences?
While these four tenets are inextricably entwined, the distinction between them is helpful for
considering where injustices lie (distributional), who is affected (recognition), how injustices can
be overcome (procedural) and what we can do to ameliorate past injustices and mitigate against
future injustices (restorative) (adapted from Jenkins et al., 2016).
In addressing these questions it’s important to account for embedded systematic cultural
and historical bias that dominates the prevailing view of the world. Therefore, it is important
to account for the perspectives from a range of stakeholders, especially those from under-
represented and marginalised groups. In examining the energy justice impacts of policies and
strategies these stakeholders may introduce perspectives that could otherwise remain unseen
and lead to unintentional replication of injustices despite the good will of those seeking to drive
positive change.
We therefore recommend that these questions are not answered by one person or individual
stakeholder group alone, but are reviewed by a collective inclusive of diverse perspectives and
backgrounds.
Justice beyond the four tenets
In addition to these four tenets of energy justice, it is worth considering how they manifest
in energy system transitions. An examination of how energy justice is discussed in the
literature helps explore the tensions, synergies and trade-offs between different perspectives
and disciplinary approaches to examining justice (Jenkins et al., 2020b). This has led to the
identification of four further dimensions of energy justice which are outlined in detail in the
following sections:
111. At different geographic scales
2. Across power structures and hierarchies
3. Along energy supply chains
4. Over time
Bringing these four dimensions together with the four tenets of energy justice provides a
framework for exploring how energy justice can be embedded into policies and practices for
delivering net-zero.
At different geographic scales
As noted in the introduction, the energy transition to net-zero will play out differently in different
parts of the world. There is no single transition pathway for countries and regions to take;
energy justice considerations and outcomes will look different in different parts of the world. For
example, some countries will be moving away from a dependence on fossil fuel extraction which
underpins their economy, while others will be seeking to develop clean energy infrastructure.
Furthermore, political processes, governance and participatory structures will also vary from
country to country, and within countries. In this context it is important to recognise that there is
no ‘one size fits all’ approach to energy justice.
Within countries there will also be variation in where, how and by whom energy transition is
felt, with the frontline communities more immediately affected by change experiencing impacts
more strongly (Graff et al., 2018).
This could be through a shift away from traditional industries such as coal mining leading to
job losses in the region or through the emergence of new renewable energy and low-carbon
technologies or infrastructure established within their communities and landscapes (e.g., wind
farms, nuclear power plants). This variation has resulted in diversification of the energy sector,
with a range of stakeholders at different scales, including households, communities, regions,
as well as new – often smaller – businesses, joining the larger incumbent industry in different
aspects of energy provision.
Scale is also an important factor in considering how climate action and energy system transition
is being delivered in planning for local areas. In the UK, Local Governments are emerging as
key stakeholders: declaring climate emergencies, setting net-zero targets for their regions,
and developing place-based strategies through which net-zero can be delivered (Howarth et
al., 2021). However, a national framework to co-ordinate this action is lacking, leaving local
authorities to making decisions independently, which could be at tension with wider national
ambition. This has been exemplified in the proposed coal mine in Cumbria (Willis, 2020), with
local priorities around jobs in tension with national targets for carbon emission reductions
that have not been devolved to localities or regions. Further challenges exist due to regional
differences in capacity and resource to deliver change. Following a decade of budget cuts, and
with climate and energy remaining non-statutory responsibilities, different local authorities are
limited in how well they are able to deliver climate action. This raises risks that those areas with
fewer resources that are focused on attending to other challenges such as housing, poverty
and education are left behind in the net-zero transition. As a result we need to go beyond
considering justice at a single scale – at the national level – or how it is distributed across whole
populations -between individual households or workers – and instead we need to explore how
justice can be embedded across different scales.
12Questions to ask when considering the geographic scales across which energy justice can be
embedded, include:
• What are the opportunities for reducing regional disparities (Levelling Up)?
• Could the policies / practices have adverse affects on those outside of the community
of interest? What can be done to mitigate against this?
• What are the opportunities for reducing socioeconomic disparities within
communities?
• Is place-based decision making taking into account all available evidence?
Across power structure and hierarchies
A just energy transition is not simply a technological or a sociotechnical matter; it can be
described as a deeply political struggle since it is characterized by issues of power; distribution
of, and access to, resources; political economy, and so on (Healy & Barry, 2017). Operationalising
energy justice means positioning energy justice within the wider ambitions, values and decision
making frameworks of those with the power to implement it, making sure to consider not only
those groups who would benefit directly from embedding justice in energy transitions, but also
those who are responsible, capable and accountable for delivering it (Jenkins et al., 2017, 2020a).
Powerful ‘elites’ have a pivotal role to play in energy transition, particularly in modern energy
systems where resources have traditionally tended towards centralised control by states, and
national and multinational energy companies (Sovacool and Brisbois, 2019). Indeed, elite power
can operate at multiple scales – from local actors to transnational powers – in order to dispute
and oppose climate change narratives and transitions (Sovacool et al., 2019a).
This means that energy transition processes and pathways can become intertwined with
processes of inequality, exclusion, and injustice if due attention isn’t awarded to the power
of elites to resist, slow or shape low carbon transitions (Sovacool and Brisbois, 2019). This is
exemplified by a study of Queensland (Australia), which illustrated how incumbent utility
providers presented key threats for embedding justice in the region’s energy transition through
communicating a strong “environment versus jobs” narrative in order to maintain their position
(Goddard and Farrelly, 2018). Goddard & Farrelly suggest that a long-term vision combined with
a managed approach to energy transition has the potential to overcome incumbent influences
and potential lock-in to existing hierarchical structures. In addition, building strong actor
networks within affected communities can encourage bipartisan support and mitigate possible
distributional impacts.
There is also the potential to engage with powerful elites in driving positive and pervasive
change, for example, by embedding or aligning energy justice approaches with pre-existing
political and economic systems (Jenkins et al., 2020b). For example, by quantifying energy
justice to assess how different countries perform (Heffron et al., 2018), developing energy justice
checklists for key decision makers (Sidortsov and Sovacool, 2015), or economising energy justice
through the introduction of equitable tariffs to help enact regulations that promote higher levels
of energy justice (Alvial-Palavicino and Ureta, 2017).
13Powerful elites do have a role to play in energy transitions, given their inherent self-interest. It is
therefore important to drive consensus building across a wide range of stakeholders, including
governments, donors, public and transnational actors, to ensure consistent long-term vision
and policies that embed energy justice in decision-making frameworks. It’s equally important to
create space for new actors and business models aligned with energy justice principles, as well as
provide opportunities for wide scale public buy-in for driving forward a momentum for change
that can counteract elite voices and leverage their interests to align with energy justice processes
and outcomes (Ford and Hardy, 2020; Goddard and Farrelly, 2018).
Implementing a more democratic approach to decision making can help build trust, increase
perceptions of fairness, and improve levels of “buy in” from different stakeholder groups to a
degree that can overcome the presence of negative impacts (Becker et al., 2019; Haggett, 2009;
Wolsink, 2007).
Local, community and civic stakeholders are becoming increasingly important and engaged with
energy transitions. This is due in part to the scale and distributed nature of renewable generation
technologies, many of which can be incorporated into households such as solar PV, heat pumps,
battery storage, EVs etc. This brings the new energy system much closer to people and the
communities in which they live, thus enabling individuals, cooperatives and small companies to
invest in owning and operating energy infrastructure themselves.
Additionally, with the increase in privately or community owned ‘behind the meter’3
technologies, located in people’s homes and businesses, these are not subject to traditional
energy utility regulation (Tagliapietra et al., 2019) enabling people to take autonomy. Therefore,
as many new processes are being operated and delivered by individuals and cooperatives
themselves (rather than being delivered by hierarchical traditional energy industries and
financing regimes) these point to the need for a new energy democracy in which people can
participate.
A study of 46 community energy organisations across Europe (including cooperatives, social
enterprises, energy communities and not-for-profit organisations) found that their identities
were deeply rooted in human-centric values and goals (Campos and Marín-González, 2020).
These organisations had an inherent conviction that rather than having large foreign company
“oligarchies” service local communities, renewables opened the door to a new energy paradigm,
where energy is safer and fairer. Campos and Marin-Gonzalez therefore argue that the current
energy transition should result in a reconfiguration of what energy is, from a commodity
excluding some people and reifying prevalent hierarchies, to an essential and vital good.
It is of course excellent news that more participatory processes are being developed and
communities are being afforded opportunities to embed energy justice principles into both
local and national decision-making. However, some processes are still hampering community
participation. One example is the loss of the feed in tariff in the UK as of April 2019. It was
predicted that this would severely undermine the financial viability of new community projects
going forward (Regen, 2018) but was cut by the Government despite the fact that 90% of
respondents to the Government’s consultation of this said they were opposed to its loss (BEIS,
2018).
3 Domestic onsite generation technologies are commonly known as ‘behind the meter’ technologies as they are
situated on the energy user’s side of the meter and can affect the amount of imported (metered) electricity
14 used by the customer.In addition, some communities may be less well equipped to engage in, or resource, community-
led projects. We therefore need to connect local ‘bottom up’ approaches with national level
action to ensure energy justice is appropriately embedded in decision-making processes across
the political spectrum.
Questions to ask when considering how energy justice interplays with politics, power, and
decision making hierarchies include:
• How are stakeholders from citizens and communities to large organisations and elites
influencing policy, research, and data? What strategies are in place to ensure that no
one voice has undue influence?
• How might the proposed policy/strategy impact this diversity of stakeholders? Might
there be negative impacts to incumbents that needs to be managed?
• What are the opportunities for greater inclusivity in decision-making / ownership
/ local trading & business models? How will the policy/strategy diversify power
structures?
• How are different values held by different actors accounted for and how are trade-
offs made? And how are decisions being held to account by and for these stakeholder
groups? And how are these processes being legitimised?
Justice along supply chains
It is too simple to view the energy system only through the lens of the end-users who could reap
multiple benefits from renewable and low carbon technologies in their household, workplace or
local community, such as lower energy bills, energy efficiency, warmth etc., or through the lens
of local environmental benefits such as improved air quality. We must also take into account the
range of impacts caused across the whole lifecycle, many of which can take place hundreds, if
not thousands, of miles away from the end-user.
The technology life cycle consists of extraction; production; operation and supply; consumption
and waste management (Heffron and McCauley, 2017). Global justice considers energy justice
across the whole technology lifecycle, including the supply chains that are embedded within
that lifecycle. Global justice therefore considers how the costs of extraction, consumption and
eventual disposal of fossil fuel wastes are unevenly distributed across different populations
around the world (Healy and Barry, 2017).
Sovacool identifies many global issues of injustice within these lifecycles, including:
• the manual extraction of cobalt to be used in EV batteries in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo by women and children working in unsafe and unsanitary conditions;
• contaminated water supplies in France from nuclear incidents that have destroyed
indigenous vineyards;
• the loss of approximately 64,000 jobs in solar PV manufacture in Germany due to
subsidised Chinese manufacturing; and
• the export of nearly half of the UK’s e-waste to a single scrapyard in Ghana (the equivalent
of 250 shipping containers of e-waste arriving every month (Sovacool et al., 2019a).
15Therefore if a Just Transition entails “creating environmentally sustainable economies and
societies for all” (ILO, 2015) countries should not be able to offset their carbon emissions and
technological waste overseas without accounting for it within their own carbon budgets.
Questions to ask when considering energy justice across global supply chains include:
• What are the whole lifecycle implications and impacts?
• What impacts might be felt by businesses or communities along the supply chain?
Might there be negative unintended conseqences?
• How are businesses and communities along the supply chain being engaged? Are
they being exploited or is there a way to give them voice?
• How can social inequities along the supply chain be mitigated, for example,
by altering procurement frameworks to account for fair trade / environmental
degredation, and embed this within existing frameworks?
Energy transitions and justice over time
Energy transitions don’t happen overnight; they can take decades or generations, even for
relatively wealthy, small, and committed countries (Gambhir et al., 2018; Sovacool, 2017).
Given the need to deliver net-zero by 2050 at the latest, this means action is required now. This
is especially pertinent when we consider that it can take up to several decades for different
technologies to move through from research and development to production, to market and
end-user take-up (Gross et al., 2018). The cost curves associated with new technologies may
change over time with costs decreasing as production and performance increases. There may be
changes in benefits associated with diminishing returns on investment as deployment increases.
In addition, investments made today may take time to deliver returns, or may be dependent on
changes to other parts of the energy system. Therefore, the links between the cost of transition
and the benefits that will accrue is not straightforward.
There is also a time dimension involved in when to commence the closedown of existing fossil-
fuel based industries and start to transition these towards future opportunities. For instance,
it is better to engage and act early while those industries are still viable, rather than reacting
later once they may have gone into liquidation or do not have the finances available to invest
in a smooth transition which also supports their existing workforce, for example, through skills
training.
Gambhir et al., state that this means implementing ‘proactive’ rather than reactive policies:
“Reactive policies are aimed at helping workers in sectors negatively impacted by a
low-carbon transition and include income support, retraining and career support, job
transfers which help displaced workers into new jobs, pension bridging and workforce
transition plans. Proactive policies are aimed at maximising the long-term benefits of the
transition and include labour market modelling to identify sectors where skills are needed,
targeted skills training, industrial transition support to help firms shift from high to low
carbon activities, and geographically targeted public spending to help vulnerable regions.”
(Gambhir et al., 2018)
16Implementing proactive policies can also reduce the likelihood of future harm, for example,
through implementing transition frameworks for workers in polluting industries (Abram et al.,
2020) or through deliberately considering the effects of current decisions on future generations.
As Muttitt notes:
“leaving things until carbon budgets are mostly exhausted would result in disruptive
change that would be sudden, costly, and painful. By starting now, the transition can be
managed efficiently and fairly, to the maximum benefit of everyone involved.”
(Muttitt, 2016)
Sovacool et al (Sovacool et al., 2019b) drawing from earlier research (Sovacool et al., 2017; Delina
and Sovacool, 2018), discuss 10 energy justice principles for decision-makers. Two of these
principles relate to intragenerational equity (all people have energy rights) and intergenerational
equity (future generations also have a right to enjoy life undisturbed by the damage caused
today).
The latter is reminiscent of the First Nation’s 7th Generation principle, which, based on an ancient
Haudenosaunee philosophy, highlights that whenever a new policy or proposal is considered,
decision-makers should carefully appraise its impact seven generations into the future, with
regard to the health and social welfare of these future generations.
While in the UK our planning frameworks rarely reach as far as considering seven generations
into the future, there are examples of long-term thinking in the Government’s 2050 net-zero
target, Local Authority Climate Energy Plans and Local Development Frameworks (which
normally include at least a 20-year vision of what a local area wishes to achieve) etc. However,
long-term planning should not mean ‘kicking the difficult decisions further down the road’.
Action should be taken today to secure benefits for future generations.
Questions to ask when considering the temporal elements of energy justice include:
• Is the policy / practice proactive in seeking long-term benefits?
• Who / what could be adversely impacted by the policy / practice over time and how?
• Will the policies / practices adversely impact future generations? For instance through
cost burdens; erosion of landscape or lock-in to a particular trajectory (e.g. hydrogen
boilers)?
• What measures could be put in place to mitigate against future generations being
unfairly burdened by polices and decisions taken today?
17Using the Energy Justice POINTs framework
Bringing the four tenets of energy justice together with the four dimensions of energy justice
emerging from the literature provides a framework for considering how different components of
energy justice might be embedded into net-zero energy transitions. This focus on social equity
can help put people into the heart of policy making and decision-making frameworks, alongside
the more traditional focus on economic, climate, and environmental impact.
The Energy Justice POINTs framework and associated questions can help decision makers explore
the wide-reaching energy justice implications of their net-zero visions, strategies, and policies.
This is just as important for reactive policies that look to address past and present injustices,
as it is for proactive ones trying to get ahead of the curve and deliver a just transition into
the future. This could have benefits for a wide range of stakeholders, for instance by reducing
regional economic disparities through targeted provision of jobs and training initiatives. It’s
therefore important to design policies not just for the current system, but proactively for the
future system that reflect on the questions of who wins/loses, how, why, and when, across time,
geography, supply chains, and decision-making hierarchies. We have provided a guide for using
the framework through a worked example of a specific project which took place in Cornwall, the
Cornwall Local Energy Market (LEM) project. Background context on the Cornwall LEM project is
provided in Box 2 below to aid understanding.
Box 2: The Cornwall Local Energy Market
The Cornwall Local Energy Market was a four year trial (2016-2020) jointly funded by the
European Regional Development Fund and Centrica. The aim of the trial was to unlock
network capacity through intelligent management of supply and demand in constrained
areas of the distribution network in Cornwall. This was achieved by installing a range of
renewable and storage devices in homes and businesses and setting up an online trading
platform to allow Western Power Distribution (WPD) who are the Distribution Network
Operator (DNO) for Cornwall, along with National Grid, to purchase flexibility services from
project participants.
The Cornwall LEM recruited participants from across Cornwall to take part in the trial; these
included industrial & commercial customers, SMEs, and one hundred households. The
households received solar panels, smart batteries and monitoring equipment through the
project; enabling them to act as a ‘Virtual Power Plant’, the largest of its kind at the time in
the UK. The energy they produced was aggregated and controlled remotely to provide a
single block of power in trading events. In addition, the project installed a range of devices
to 87 businesses; including solar, wind, storage and CHP technologies, as well as energy
monitoring devices and training opportunities to enable these participants to also trade on
the platform.
All text taken from Future Prospects for Local Energy Markets: Lessons from the Cornwall
LEM (Bray et al., 2020)
18POINTs Framework – worked example
Distribution
1 What are the primary benefits? Are Design and rollout of an online trading platform
there any second order benefits? in conjunction with the installation of renewable
For example, policies supporting and low carbon technologies at 100 households
greenhouse gas emissions reductions and approx. 100 business premises.
in cities could have health benefits
This leads to:
due to reduced air pollution;
economic benefits due to reduced Reduction in carbon, lowering of energy bills for
hospitalisation; and wider social participants, ability to trade (earn revenue) for
and environmental benefits due to participants, unlocking of network congestion
reductions in carbon emissions in line through market mechanisms.
with targets for climate action.
2 Who are the intended beneficiaries? LEM participants (had to be resident in
This could focus on particular groups Cornwall).
defined by geography (e.g., those
WPD (through enabling better management
in a particular region), or socio-
of distribution network / unlocking network
demographics (e.g., those living in
constraints).
social housing, those who travel on
public transport, those in fuel poverty WPD and National Grid through trialling
etc.). procurement of different market mechanisms.
Ofgem & BEIS through better understanding of
policy mechanisms.
General population through lowering of
greenhouse gas emissions.
3 Are there structural reasons why Project specifically targeted at Cornwall;
certain groups may be unintentionally therefore only available to Cornish residents &
excluded or marginalised? For example, businesses.
gender-neutral policies could have
Householders had to be home owners, therefore
gendered impacts due to unaccounted
excluded other forms of housing tenure.
for differences in working or travel
patterns by men and women.
4 What are the costs (economic and Financial costs were covered by EU funding
beyond), who is bearing them, and (European Regional Development Fund) and
how are these costs distributed? Centrica plc.
Explore potential unintended
The project financially benefitted the LEM
consequences that may result in
participants, but it also put them at an
additional unforeseen impacts,
advantage to other Cornish residents and
including financial consequences for
businesses who were unable to join the LEM trial
future generations.
and therefore also benefit from any potential
returns from market trading, reduced electricity
costs and the installation of free equipment.
19Recognition
5 Who does this policy serve? Is it based Cornish home owners and business owners.
on the dominant cultural groups (often
Centrica plc through learning by doing.
aligned with white male identity) or are
different groups explicitly considered? WPD and National Grid through learning by
doing.
6 Are there any groups of people This was a specific time bound trial, therefore it
who are either not recognised or worked with a narrow category of participants.
misrepresented in the future scenario/ However within the parameters of the
society this policy aims to deliver? project there was attempt made to include
This could be unintentional due to a representative percentage of the Cornish
replication of historical bias in how population by age, income, household size and
different groups of people with location for the householder trial.
different identities are accounted for.
Some businesses weren’t able to proceed with
the trial due to their location on the distribution
network (e.g. weren’t able to obtain an export
connection).
7 Does the policy value all members of As Q6
society in an explicit rather than an
assumed way? Implicit recognition can
suffer from hidden forms of bias, so it’s
important to articulate how the policy
ensures that all members of society are
valued and treated fairly.
8 How does the policy level the playing Can be argued that it only served those who
field in terms of access to energy already had economic means (e.g. home owners
services or benefits for those people / business owners).
who may suffer injustice in the current
system?
Procedural
9 What channels have been employed This was a limited trial and it had more initial
to provide stakeholders with input applicants than the trial could cater for, so
to decision-making processes? Are participant recruitment of the project wasn’t an
these channels appropriate for all issue.
stakeholders? Have a range of channels
However, if the project were to be rolled out to a
been implemented to increase
wider audience then more consideration should
participation? For instance online
be given to methods of recruitment to ensure
consultations may be inappropriate
fairness.
for older people, while ‘roundtables’
may be inaccessible to those who
work during the day or have caring
responsibilities.
20Procedural
10 Which stakeholders have been The project included a householder stream
actively engaged? Are there biases and a business stream. Business participants
toward particular groups due to the had ongoing engagement through a series of
engagement channels used? seminars aimed at increasing their knowledge of
energy trading. Householder participants were
engaged through a one-off seminar towards the
end of the project. Participants were also able to
provide feedback via surveys and interviews and
all participants had a dedicated contact person
on the project for any queries / concerns.
11 Are there any groups who have been All participants were engaged throughout the
systematically (if unintentionally) project. Any Cornish businesses could attend
shut out due to the processes the seminar series whether they were project
implemented? participants or not. However, only householders
participating in the project could attend the
householder seminar. In addition, the end of
project dissemination event was open to anyone
to attend.
12 How has stakeholder input been The UoE were independent project partners
accounted for in the decision-making who conducted surveys with all the householder
processes and resultant policies? and business participants and held interviews
Are some voices given priority for with a cross sample of these. These findings
deliberate or unintentional reasons? were included in the overall project findings.
Is this bias (if deliberate) transparent? However as this was a time-bound project, the
If unintentional, what action can be findings were aimed more at informing future
taken to remove the bias? policies and procedures rather than the project
itself.
Restorative
13 Which stakeholders or parts of society Due to the LEM being a time-bound trial
experience injustice in current policy or with specific participant requirements for
practice arrangements? Why is this the recruitment, this effectively excluded anyone
case? Are there underlying issues (e.g., who didn’t meet these requirements.
social, political, economic etc.) that
have created this past injustice?
14 How might these groups be affected by If the LEM were to be rolled out as an ongoing
new policies in process and outcomes? project then mechanisms should be used
Through what mechanisms is past to engage with, and recruit from, a wider
injustice being addressed? participant pool.
15 Have these groups been engaged in Not known.
this restorative process?
21You can also read
